Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

One of the more compelling (and scary) stories about how AI takes over the world. If you liked this, also check our Pluribus.

▲

CamperBob2 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't get it. First, how is it "better for you" to take the earring off, if "the wearer lives an abnormally successful life, usually ending out as a rich and much-beloved pillar of the community with a large and happy family?"

Second, apparently some people do choose to take the earring off at some point, because the story refers to "the testimony of all living wearers." So it does not, in fact, appear to usurp, subvert or replace the wearer's free will.

Not seeing the problem here.

	▲	wavemode 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It stands to reason that the people who took the earring off were less happy and made worse decisions than the people who kept it on for the rest of their lives. So then ask yourself: why did they take it off? Pondering the implications of that question is the entire point of this short story.
	▲	Nevermark 13 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How would you feel with a procedure in which your brain was scooped out like ice cream from a bowl, and replaced with circuits that would do a better job of your life for you? > So it does not, in fact, appear to usurp, subvert or replace the wearer's free will. Ok, the ice cream scooping happens slowly. At what point of atrophy, do you think it becomes easier to revert to what is left of it? You still have free will, in the strictest sense. But you are increasingly dependent, so have lost optionality that no amount of will can replace.

▲

keeda an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I suppose the earring never whispered anything about putting glue on pizza?

▲

mmooss 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

(2012)

Also here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131230055512/http://squid314.l...

Does anyone know the provenance of this story? One comment says, responding to someone who recommends publishing it,

> The problem is that it's published so he can sell only second rights.

EDIT: The story is tagged (at the top) "fiction, raikoth". Raikoth is the 'constructed civilization' of Scott Alexander, author of Slate Star Codex, et al. And though the post is at gwern.net, I see the author is "Scott".

	▲	lalaithion 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What do you mean the provenance? It was published on livejournal in 2012, that’s the provenance.
	▲	emmelaich 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yep, Scott (squid314) used livejournal before SlateStarCodex, before AstralCodexTen.

▲

beepbooptheory 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This came up the other day, can someone help explain this to me? I am not quite sharp enough to understand it. Context:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48911884

▲

fourthark 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Seems like a fairly direct parable against AI, suggesting that even if it's right it's better to think for yourself.

▲

beepbooptheory 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You mean like LLM AI? Seems a little too early for that no?

Either way, what is it right about? In your mind?

▲

margalabargala 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's not subtle, it's clearly saying "if you outsource your thinking to something else, your mind will wither".

People complaining about this have a long and storied history, this is the same as Plato complaining philosophers were ruining their minds by writing things down to remember them.

▲

beepbooptheory 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

This is not what Plato thought, this is not even what Plato wrote that Socrates thought. You are referring to the Phaedrus. You should read it! Its much better than this story, trust me.

But either way, people's minds do not wither in this story, it explicitly works out fine for them?

	▲	Dylan16807 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> But either way, people's minds do not wither in this story, it explicitly works out fine for them? Huh? "when the corpses of the wearers were being prepared for burial, it was noted that their brains were curiously deformed: the neocortexes had wasted away, and the bulk of their mass was an abnormally hypertrophied mid- and lower-brain, especially the parts associated with reflexive action" You could infer their minds fading away even without that paragraph, but it's very explicit. Also you have another comment where you insist nobody has explained what the story is arguing when multiple people told you what the story is arguing, what the heck.

▲

paytonjjones an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Based on your comments I think you do understand it but are taking it too seriously / too literally.

Consider the title: Scott Alexander and others have written more clear, philosophically robust versions of a similar argument ("you shouldn't trade your agency for good outcomes").

But that's not the point here. This is the artsy version that's supposed to make you feel the argument.